Teacher Placed On Leave For Gun Photo
By Wyatt Earp | February 7, 2009
This is not Betsy Ramsdale, in case one of her a-hole co-workers is interested.
I;ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Political correctness is destroying this country.
BEAVER DAM — Beaver Dam school officials placed a middle school teacher on administrative leave after discovering a photograph of the teacher with a gun on the teacher’s Facebook page.
In the photo, teacher Betsy Ramsdale is training a rifle at the camera.
Friggin’ ridiculous. Personally, I think the name of the school should be changed. “Beaver Dam?” It’s offensive!
Ramsdale emailed 27 News in response to our inquiries saying she “removed the photo immediately” and that she is not “interested in any controversy.” Ramsdale did not comment on her motivation for posting the photo.
Schools superintendent Donald Childs told 27 News he is unaware of any sinister intent on the teacher’s part and said the use of the photo “appears to be poor judgment.”
Really? So I guess teachers are now like police officers? We are never off duty, and whatever we do on our own time may be called upon for review.
Childs said the Facebook photo was brought to the attention of school district officials by a concerned staff member at Beaver Dam Middle School. (H/T – WKOW)
Read: Some liberal hippie scumbag was offended and thought it was his/her duty to report the teacher to the proper authorities.
It’s a photo on her personal Facebook page, you douchebag! Do you think that just because she has a photo of herself with a gun – on her personal page – she is going to enter the school and shoot everyone?
I’m no fan of this new litigious society, but I absolutely think Ramsdale should sue the pants off the “concerned staff member,” the school superintendent, and the Beaver Dam School District for violating her civil rights.
Then, and only then, will this madness stop.
Topics: Gun Pr0n, WTF? | 19 Comments »
February 7th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Sounds like a swell idea. If there’s something school boards fear more than offending people, it’s being sued by people they’ve wronged.
February 7th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
School boards assume the position when it comes to lawsuits. She should sue them.
And people think I’m paranoid.
February 7th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
This does Not surprise me in the least, seeing as how it happened in my state. We can’t even get a concealed carry passed for gawd sake.
Someday, we the armed, will outvote the paranoid gun haters, until that time…………(hides the rifles, shotguns, pistols, and crossbows.)
February 7th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
AAAAUUUGHHHH -BOOM! You guessed it…
February 7th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Hey, I’m offended by that Fat Bastard picture in the next post down, but I’m not going to do anything about it!
February 7th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Anti-gun sentiment is a mental disorder. Gun hatred has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the manifestation of cowardice in those who seek to preclude anyone from using a gun in self defense or exercising any degree of self reliance.
I hope this woman finds a different job where she isn’t totally surrounded by smarmy toads who are vigilantly seeking the first opportunity to surrender.
I find it amazing that the liberals hate the police (remember profiling) yet invoke the police as the alternative to having guns for self protection.
Liberalism is a disease.
Jason
February 8th, 2009 at 4:22 am
I have a naive idea of your Constitution. I believed that you followed English Law in that everything is allowed as long as it is not specifically disallowed*. Thus, anyone can do and say what they ****** well like unless it harms someone in which case there will be a law against it. This does not seem to apply after all!
I believe that the worst that should have been done was to ask her (maybe even insist if needed) to remove the picture because, like it or not, she is a role model, her pupils already look at her site, and you should never point a gun at anyone (think about the tragedy of the son of one of Wyatts colleagues recently). Approached from that angle, I am sure she would have removed it willingly.
I doubt very much that her contract removes her 2nd Ammendment rights!
* This has largely been removed by going into the EU where French Law is used where everything is banned unless the EU says you can do it.
February 8th, 2009 at 5:36 am
Alan,
Each state is a little different, but there is a general rule in teaching that if you do something that is considered a detriment to your students and district, you can be fired; however, I don’t see how this teacher’s picture violated anything.
She should have thought how people can see what she does, though. My school district actually requests that we avoid Facebook. I have one and have never used it, because I’m afraid students will find me…even with the private setting. I just don’t need the grief. Likewise, I always kind of worry about them reading my blog, and I panic once in a while when I see hits from where I teach.
Like Wyatt said, we are never off the clock. Parents think nothing of gossiping about us in the various shopping venues, at the gym (not even in the town), on public forums, and by other means.
February 8th, 2009 at 7:25 am
For a while there, I thought this was in Beaver Dam Kentucky, but I see it’s in Wisconsin. Whew! If it had been in Beaver Dam Kentucky, the teacher would have been congratulated on her firepower.
February 8th, 2009 at 7:59 am
RT has a very good point. When I was a student teacher I was open to scrutiny by the entire community. I mean, they almost literally went through my shopping cart at the grocery store!
And if they saw me at the mall…good grief.
February 8th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Go bigger, what army’s uniform is the lady with the rifle wearing, and now why is the picture offensive?
February 8th, 2009 at 10:15 am
RT
Avoiding Facebook seems a really sensible idea. I do not have a Facebook page and have no intention of ever havingone and I am retired from any sensitive activities.
As I hinted, I am sure any pupils above 10 years old will find a way to get into any site involving their teacher.
I hope someone has the sense to recognize that she responded immediately and took the picture down. Not quite sure what more they want. If it’s a sackable offense (can’t see how) then sack her. If it’s not, get her back to work.
February 8th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Alan, if the teacher in question is pointing the gun at the camera, how is that pointing a gun at children? If it was the teacher pointing a gun at an actual child, then that would be something to be very concerned about, but how is the gun aimed at children if the gun is aimed at the camera?
An adult can make the claim the gun is aimed at him using your reasoning in regards to the picture. Wouldn’t other people think that is a silly claim to make? So how is it different with children?
February 8th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Wyatt.
You should have warned your readers to have the duct tape handy. My head expolded after reading this one.
February 8th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Hi Morgan
I think you have missed the point I was making – fair enough – 2 different cultures.
The point I was making is that, unless the camera is working on remote, the fact of pointing a gun at the camera means it is pointing the gun at someone i.e. the cameraman. Pointing a gun needlessly at someone, anyone, is a bad thing – even I know that in a no-gun culture.
For a teacher (or anyone) to be seen pointing a gun at anyone (including the cameraman) is not a good example for any children who might view the picture. Personally, I think this can be dealt with by taking the picture down and words on the spot with the teacher’s line manager.
Obviously (to me, at least) pointing the gun at a camera in a posed picture is NOT the same thing as pointing it at a parent or child. My point has nothing to do with this. If the teacher had pointed a gun at a child in real life they would have to have a mighty good reason – and I can’t think of what it might be!!
February 8th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Alan, I see your point and thank you for clarifying it for me. Personally, however, I don’t see how a picture such as the one in question could be a bad example for kids who view it. But to draw on something you said, the difference lies with our cultures. Thanks again for responding.
February 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
To deter employers from viewing social networking pages, employees might post on their pages legal terms of service under which employers agree to scram. This idea should not be taken as legal advice for any particular situation, just a topic for public discussion. Details: –Ben
February 9th, 2009 at 8:16 am
Morgan – Exactly why I think she should file a lawsuit.
RT – Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that people aren’t out to get you.
E.L. – You would think a state with so much cheese would be a little more easy-going.
Captain – Head exploded? I warned you.
GroovyVic – Oh, you love it!
Jason – And the second one of these teachers is a victim of a crime, they will be running to the gun stores. Guaranteed.
Alan B – Ah, the French. The Weasels of the EU.
RT – Just like us. We’re this close to a “morals clause.”
Ky person – And asked to bring the rifle in for show and tell!
GroovyVic – Well, in fairness, they were wondering why you were getting so many items of lingerie? Heh.
Earl – It’s a random photo I found of an Israeli Defense Forces sniper. It’s not the teacher involved in this case. The pic of the oman involved was too small to print, but it was just her pointing the rifle at the camera. Not really offensive.
Alan B – Agreed. She removed the photo, so now they should end the “leave,” and let things go back to (relative) normal. If not, she sould get a lawyer.
Morgan – Maybe I should take down the photo for this post? Some liberal pansies might find it “offensive?” Me? I think the sniper is hot.
Rick – Damn. I really should have a canned warning at the ready for posts like these.
Alan – My guess is that the camera is automated. just a guess, though.
Ben – Good point. Thanks for the info.
February 9th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
If guns really did make people do evil things, then would it really be a good idea to piss off a gun owner? Just the simple fact that the concerned-hippie nut job hasn’t had their head turned into a pink cloud, is proof that Ramsdale is a responsible gun owner.
Also, how much you want to bet the concerned loser has pictures of themselves smoking pot floating around anywhere? Maybe we should find those, and turn them in out of self concern, to the Beaver Dam School district.